1. I don't like libertarianism.2. I will take the last five posts from the top 20 blogs to give me a sample size of 100 and read them.3. I don't like them. I was right. QED.

From a scientific point of view, here are the problems.

1. This is neither a hypothesis nor a null hypothesis. The conclusion was determined before the start of the experiment. Nothing anyone wrote on any blog labelled 'Libertarian' would ever sway this guy. hence the experiment was pointless.

2. The sample size is not 100. The dataset consists of five samples each from twenty entirely separate subjects. Those samples were not selected at random but were the five most recent on each blog. Hence his surprise at finding Copenhagen and climate change is the most popular subject over the last five posts, and his amazement that libertarians aren't all bowing to the Green God.

3. See 1.

The lists of top 20 blogs of every type, every political persuasion, are subjective. They are voted on and then compiled. Some opted out. Taking the last five posts from the top 20 of such a list is like going to twenty neighbour's houses, taking the first five books you find and then basing a generalised view of all those neighbours on your analysis of those books. The twenty neighbours are individuals. The twenty bloggers are too.

And yet our Green God acolyte derives the following conclusion from his experiment:

But the posts I've seen were just so bad that of 100 I've checked I cannot point a single one that had any new insights or was interesting in any way. Few even pass basic sanity tests - not just by being contrarian - contrarian posts are much more interesting to read than ones that repeat the conventional wisdom - but by simply not having any idea what they write about.

You know, if I were to go and find twenty blogs on something i'm not at all interested in, or something I strongly disagreed with, and read the last five posts on each, I'd probably fail to find anything interesting either. It's so very likely, in fact, that there's no point in putting myself through the pain of reading all about dog hair removal or anchovy filleting or badger rotation or any other such thing. I don't visit ASH's website because I know I'm not welcome there and they aren't likely to say anything I'm ever going to agree with. An analysis of the last five posts on the ASH website would be entirely pointless because everyone -smoker and non-smoker - knows what those posts will be about and what they plan to do.

So, TAW took the top 20 libertarian blogs, found they are libertarian in nature, and since he already thinks libertarians are loons because they don't agree with him, he can declare them loons because he already knew that and just wanted to find something to point at and shriek 'See! See! They think differently to me! That proves they are insane'.

Believe whatever you like, TAW. Libertarianism allows that, in fact encourages it. Libertarians will not force you to think like them, act like them, eat like them, live like them. No libertarian blogger has, to my knowledge, declared their BMI as a qualification to talk about diet. When we do talk about diet, it's along the lines of 'if you want to get fat or be thin, your choice. Don't bother us with excuses, just get on and live how you want'.

Insane? Sure, if you like. If controlling everyone until they are all exactly the same is sanity, I want no part of it. If shouting down everyone who thinks differently is sanity, you can keep it.

If sanity means reacting to the word 'smoking' as if someone had just rammed a lit stick of dynamite up your backside, pass the straitjacket.

And the cigarettes.

Oh, and if anyone's wondering why I haven't mentioned whisky, it's because tonight I have been mostly drinking Napoleon brandy. Appropriate, as it turned out.

On the subject of Climate Change, I saw Fuckwit McSnot on TV this morning along with the Frog Midget promising several millions or is it billions to developing nations to combat this.Naturally, this is money neither he nor the UK possesses. When my elderly aunt died & was found to have written a will of grandiose bequests - without the money to back it up - she was deemed to have been suffering from dementia. I rest my case.

Anon 9.46, are you the same twat who keeps popping on ours with the same twatty comments by any chance? Illiberal, yeah, amazingly so. W just want to ban everything we do....

Prick.

Holby you fucker, a decent article. TAW's approach is clearly pointless and absurd. He misses the very point of libertarianism - that it is a spectrum of views based on certain key points, not an ideology (do you understand that anon you bell end?).

I mean the fucking sneering condescending shite you write about the Mail and the Telegraph, you cunts.

The intrinsic hypocrisy of the MSM isn't a new topic- PE has written about it for years, far better than you two ever fucking do. And they're covering stories, especially in their online editions, that the rest of the MSM aren't really touching- witness Delinpole's blog at the Telegraph.

The antilibertarians are beginning to get on my nerves. Last night C4 had one of the Millies being told by a studio audience that more government control was needed to force people to "take action against climate change" and just now on BBC News suggestions that people should shop anyone they see using a mobile phone while driving (which I know is illegal, but is it really any more dangerous than having a conversation with a passenger?). What has happened to the instinctive rejection of snooping and informing which used to make the idea of a police state so laughable?

The anti-libertarian meme does seem to be growing in popularity recently, perhaps in response to the growing profile of libertarian ideas. We can expect many more Taws in the future, posting things like this and calling us "Randroids" no matter what we actually say.

Is libertarianism hated because it is misunderstood? There seems to be a widespread belief that libertarianism means plutocracy and the enslavement of the poor by a small number of megacorporations. And yet, the left liberals advocate an even worse situation, with a single megacorporation known as "The Government" which has the ability to force people to pay tax, the ability to control the media, and the ability to suppress competition by force.

It's sad to see such anti-libertarianism from a software developer. Given the engineering advantages of decentralised distributed systems, you'd hope that developers would instantly recognise the benefits of a free market and minimal Government, or at least find something of merit. But no.

What is it that people fear?...is it controling their own lives and monies?, surely there is more to fear from guvmint domination and faceless grey suits....

Are Libertarians seen as glib and uncaring,and out of touch with the realities of human nature,or as anarchists even?..and taxes how is the NHS,POLICE,ARMY,STREET CLEANING etc going to be paid for?, difficult questions to answer for those without an indepth knowledge of Libertarian ideology like me to answer.I want freedom etc dont most people but is this as free as it gets now?

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is its morality.